On 2018-02-10 (12:07 MST), Joseph Brennan <bren...@columbia.edu> wrote: > > --On February 9, 2018 at 5:46:39 PM -0700 "@lbutlr" <krem...@kreme.com> wrote: >> RFC 822 hasn't been valid for nearly two decades. > > Yes of course. My point was that even decades ago, To and Cc headers were not > required by RFC 822, so our contributor should not say that he is blocking > for violating RFC 822.
But even if they were required in RFC 822, RFC 822 has been obsoleted not just once, but twice. So, someone claiming to be blocking based on RFC 822 in 2018 is showing their total ignorance of RFCs since it matters not at all what RFC 822 says. and hasn't since 2822 was accepted (and that has been obsoleted in turn, so it is also not valid). > He can say he is blocking because he wants mail to have a To header. He can > block because a subject line contains the letter Z if he wants to. That is a > different line of argument than calling an RFC violation. Sure, but calling an RFC violation is also different from calling an RFC violation for an INVALID RFC. -- NOBODY LIKES SUNBURN SLAPPERS Bart chalkboard Ep. 7F23
